Sunday, August 13, 2006

WTF Moments in Local Editorials!

Daniel from Memphis decided to weigh in on the global warming "debate" a couple of days ago in the Commercial Appeal. Daniel is good at making himself sound smart but he's really just making shit up. I call this the "Fox News Syndrome." The problem with people like Daniel is that readers who aren't well-informed (which, in the case of climate change, would be a lot of people) are inclined to believe what he says because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. For those people, I offer up my take on his "argument."

1. You take your dog's temperature? That's weird. And what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

2. "We don't have enough information to really say." Actually, that's not true. The scientific community unanimously agrees that global warming is a problem AND that it is man-made issue. The popular press is the ONLY print outlet that has indicated there is any sort of debate on the issue.

3. "We only have 27 years of global weather data..." This may be true, but even so, that's still enough data to conclude there has been a marked increase in both temperature and extreme weather events. Most of the detrimental effects of global warming have been felt just in the past 30 years. Also, scientists are sometimes clever enough to use local data which, I'm made to understand, go back a couple more than 27 years on some parts of the globe. You don't always need a satellite to tell you what the climate is.

4. "...every combination of an atmospheric and oceanic GCM predicts global cooling..." and yet a mere two semi-colons earlier, "none of them can accurately predict even the largest weather phenomena." So first you say you can't trust the things to predict and then you use a prediction to make your point? Dude, come on! (Not to mention this whole paragraph is irrelevant because it doesn't make any sense.)

5. "...sun's output changes..." may not be taken into account by GCM's (actually, I believe they are), but most definitely are taken into account by global warming studies. "...Earth's orientation in its orbit changes..." which is only relevant if we are currently in a period of change. Which we're not.

6. "There were periods in the past when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was higher than it is currently." That's actually not even remotely true.

7. "...water vapor is [the biggest greenhouse gas factor]..." Interesting, seeing as how we aren't making any more water, but we're certainly churning out a bunch of CO2. Plus, the whole thing is sort of about quality (amount of damage) vs. quantity (amount of something in the atmosphere...water, for instance, doesn't trap the sun's energy with quite the same gusto as carbon dioxide).

8. "Perhaps the ultimate irony is that according to a "Nature" magazine article a few years ago, most of the Ice Ages were preceded by periods of warming." Dude. Have you seen The Day After Tomorrow?! You just put forth an argument for global warming. Greenland melts and Europe gets stuck under ice. "Global warming" is just a name for the change that's currently going on. It isn't specific to the type of climate change that will ultimately result.

Yes, Daniel, you have made me mad, but using only Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and my junior year Ecology textbook, I think I've managed to deflate your entire theory. So, future editorialists, for the love of God, don't make up science for the newspaper. It's highly annoying to have to keep pointing out how wrong you are.

Comments on "WTF Moments in Local Editorials!"

 

Blogger britpopbaby said ... (3:10 PM, August 13, 2006) : 

Okay, I was just humming 'Daniel' by Elton John. How spooky is that?

I think you tore him a new one but in a nice, fact based way.

 

Blogger Becky Heineke said ... (3:31 PM, August 13, 2006) : 

What's REALLY spooky is after I finished writing it, I went out and told my parents, "I just tore that guy a new one." No lie. I made my mom read your comment because she didn't believe me.

 

Blogger Weirdland said ... (6:18 PM, August 13, 2006) : 

Pg, I've just watched "An inconvenient truth" without subtitles, and I didn't catch all the warnings and scientific info, but I was really struck to the impactant images of the ice melting, tropical scenario, anticipated climatological catastrophes,Greenland melting accelerating quickly, and the ice sheet in Western Antarctica east could melt in 50 years? the relationship between sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity, C02 out of control, nuclear power plants, the Katrina disaster, the sea levels raising about 20 ft, which would submerge large portions of lower Florida!the titling at the end was really inspiring, giving us advice about what we can do personally. A very negative view, at some points, of our destructive tendencies, I think within a decade, we will not be able to stop heading down the path to climate ruining, scary overall. Al Gore was very well informated by highly qualified Ph.D. climate-scientists, and humorous despite all the horryfing alerts, and Ann Coulter called him a fag, you're in trouble, Americans ;)and to Daniel: The fact are that human population has grown to over 6 billion in the last 100 years and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased exponentially over the last 100 years: C02 Graphic

 

Blogger Becky Heineke said ... (8:05 PM, August 13, 2006) : 

EXCELLENT graphic, Kendra. At no point in history has the CO2 level been above 300 parts per million, and as your graph so clearly shows it's far above that now. That graph also roughly corresponds to the population for the same period and matches almost exactly the temperature one. Also, I fucking hate Ann Coulter and may devote an entry one of these days to what a twit she is.

TBL, you're exactly right. Higher temps lead to high evaporation rates. That's why periods of global warming are marked by periods of torrential downpours but also severe droughts. Water is sucked up from the land in some places and dropped elsewhere. We've seen that in the past few years with both increased flooding and drought throughout the world.

 

Blogger Ninni said ... (7:13 AM, August 14, 2006) : 

Ok, who is Ann Coulter and why did she call Al Gore a fag??
What...the...fuck??

This has nothing to do with anything but PG, thanks to you I've found the Daily Show... So now I'm trying to order the channel that shows DS in Finland but that channel only airs DS three times a week? I'm thinking it's aired every day in the US since it's, well, the Daily Show? If someone could shed some light on this before I go and order a bunch of useless channels? :/ (also, how long is one episode in the US?)

 

Blogger Becky Heineke said ... (8:01 AM, August 14, 2006) : 

Ooooh, you will LOVE The Daily Show!!! It's on 4 times a week in the US (Monday thru Thursday) and it's just a half an hour...but then The Colbert Report (also a half hour) is on afterwards and that show is just a different take on the same issues. (At least, I'm assuming that the channel that would give you The Daily Show would also give you The Colbert Report.) If you could get either, I think you'd be most impressed.

Ann Coulter is this uber-conservative author who likes to write books that have no basis in fact. She's friends with the like of Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the radical right. Her current book is Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in which she accuses the widdows of 9/11 of being publicity-seekers. Al Franken has written some REALLY good books that call out the lies that she and others (like O'Reilly) have been spouting off to the public. It's amazing what these people get away with, just making stuff up and then passing it off as fact.

 

Blogger Ninni said ... (9:05 AM, August 14, 2006) : 

Thanks, it's always fun to learn that there are even more right-wing nut cases in the world than I thought...

Oh and DS, I already love it - I've been watching clips from youtube for the last week or so and now I finally decided I can't continue living unless I can watch it from TV too. So thanks for this info as well, I'll go and order me some new channels now.

 

Blogger Nothing Really Matters said ... (2:50 PM, August 14, 2006) : 

We should go back to the Dark ages that way well would not have so many of these problems!

 

Blogger Becky Heineke said ... (8:40 AM, August 15, 2006) : 

^^^ Sounds VERY interesting. Also, re the voting machines...how is that even legal?! What the hell is wrong with people?? I've never trusted those things. There's no way to go back and recount is there? I think those were the ones...

 

Blogger britpopbaby said ... (1:30 PM, August 15, 2006) : 

We should go back to the Dark ages that way well would not have so many of these problems!

I'm with you NRM! It is my belief that the human race has overcomplicated itself and unless we start regressing we're doomed.

And that is spooky, PG. Are we brothers from different mothers or something?

 

post a comment

Disclaimer: The contents of this blog are based solely on the opinions the author who is not affiliated with anyone. At all. Except herself. This blog is strictly for entertainment purposes. The author would never claim to be anything less than an open liberal, but she's not operating a news organization here. In fact, it's possible she's full of crap (possible, but not likely).

Powered by Blogger